Talk:Kimberly Ivy Blackburn
OMG.... Is there any way to top this article?--Kebath 'Holoree 18:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC) So, I just have one question. Why would the UNSC even try to see if SPARTAN genes passed to the next generation by spending all this money on a failed program when all they would have to do is look at Maria-062's children? -- Sgt. johnson 18:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Reply to AJ Dear Johnson, Good question. One major goal was to see if inbreeding between SPARTANs could increase the inheritance and transmission of the putative genetic flags, or if there was a compensatory genetic effect that abrogated this. Furthermore, genetic traits that are not linked to a single gene - even things such as Type 1 Diabetes, which is believed to be controlled by a genetic system as simple as perhaps twelve genes, isn't perfectly inherited, with a 50% transmission rate. Thus, Maria's children, besides the fact they probably weren't the product of a SPARTAN inbreeding, may be an isolated case, one that may not hold true based on other confouding factors. Furthermore, Kimberly represents the perfect platform to test biochemical and surgical augumentations for further SPARTAN generations, namely the excessive usage of small-molecule chemical analogs, and also, to test SCARLET - a previously untested, highly mutagenic teratogen of significant interest to the Department of Biological Warfare. More of your input would be appreciated. :) Warm regards, [[User:RelentlessRecusant|'RelentlessRecusant']] (Bureaucrat) (Talk) ( ) 19:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Ah, I see. Due to the fact that Maria-062 probably didn't procreate with another SPARTAN would more or less produce a "flawed" sample, as only 23 randomized genes pass down, and then, some conditions are determined with more than one gene. Oh, and as an afterthought: I love the how you used your own experiences with the human body for augmentations and the like. -- Sgt. johnson 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Longest Article Sorry to spoil your fun, but it seems Ryan Ford article by ShockTrooper is the longest and its not even finished... :PKAC- 08:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) ...Heheheh yea I knew when I was typing those words that I'd missed a legit article somewhere. Time for edits ... AND YOU SUBTANK! GET TO WORK EDITING THIS! =P Regards, [[User:RelentlessRecusant|'RelentlessRecusant']] (Bureaucrat) (Talk) ( ) 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) And I Thought My ONI was Bad Up until reading this article, I thought I'd made ONI as cold as possible in my own articles (namely Simon's and Agent 2994's). But this article just takes the cake in terms of cruelty and ruthlessness. This has to be one of the best articles on this site, but it still makes me shiver at how utterly evil almost everyone mentioned in this article is. I'm talking worse than any Sith or Prophet I've ever read about. Regarding a few words "It was then that ONI knew that she had been born inherently despotic and satanic." Satanic seems a strange word to use. As ONI isn't a religious organization, it seems weird that they as an organization would know something that requires acceptance of religious ideology. "despite Kimberly's fierce anger and her inhumane cruelty and depthless masochism to the prisoners they captured in their raids," Do you mean sadism? Masochism is liking one's own pain, not causing it. Masochism to the prisoners would suggest that she would be submitting to their acts of sadism, which would appear to be against the tone of the passage. Granted, "depthless" could imply an entire lack of masochism. In any case, I'm having trouble understanding the passage. --Dragonclaws(talk) 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) this article just makes me feel so small...Hollywood :Hollywood, this article could smite any other article here on HF. I mean, this is what I try my articles to be like... but they always fall short... :( -- Sgt. johnson 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC) ::you flatter me unnecessarily :) [[User:RelentlessRecusant|'RelentlessRecusant']] (Bureaucrat) (Talk) ( ) 02:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Comments LOL! INBREEDING?! SERIOUSLY!? Just kidding, don't hate. The Bad:'''This article is '''way too long. Slim it down so that others won't give up on reading it, I almost did. I do have to say, inbreeding was an intelligent way of giving SPARTANs favorable genes, but dude, not appropriate. The Good:'''Though it's long, it is well thought through and dripping with tiny details. I find it cool how you used so much genentic intelligence-and the thing is, from my intelligence on human anatomy, it's correct! You have made a very rich article here and I encourage you to make many more! '''Rating: 5 out of 5. ''Meat'' [[User talk:Meat and Taters|'' & Taters...]] 02:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC) :Meat, this article is only going to get longer as Halo: Vector gets longer... it's like... symbiotic... this article isn't even close to being finished yet... -- Sgt. johnson 02:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC) :What!? Longer? That's just plain insane, overdoing it will ''hurt the article. People will give up reading it. That's just my opinion though, some people might enjoy the length. ''Meat'' [[User talk:Meat and Taters|'' & Taters...]] 02:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC) ::Some people give up, I've actually read the entire article... after that, I skipped some of the genetic stuff, and the history is very... interesting. It's not exactly the length, but its the sheer detail... its like... strange. -- Sgt. johnson 02:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Yeah, I skipped the genetic stuff too, but the history kept my attention through sheer attention to every morbid detail. I guess I just had to see what scary/horrifying thing would happen next. While none of my characters are this... frightening, this has inspired me to add some more detail to my own pages. *I found the history boaring. What I enjoyed was the fascinating scientific elements and the sheer concept of it all. [[User:Meat and Taters|''Meat]] [[User talk:Meat and Taters|'' & Taters...]] 02:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Very interesting......that is all I have to say. =D -- The State(Decrees and Law)( ) 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Confusing yet fun to read... RR needs to tone down the Science facts and information...- KAC 06:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks so much for your comments Dear all, I appreciate your comments. They were very touching and gave me a lot of room for thought. This article was not made long by intention; however, the detail I expended a significant amount of effort into making has necessitated the length; although it was very tedious to look up references and think of paradigms, it was definitely an enjoyable writing for me (a continued writing!) The bioethics and Kimberly's violence I find as two disturbing points that I liked to press on; part of this article was meant to be deliberately horrifying, to make people ask "what the hell?", to consider where science can go without the directing force of ethics and morality. All the biological techniques and paradigms described within are all technically-accomplishable by our current technologies. I also liked investigating the depth of human emotion, how dark one could be, and am a significant proponent of human rights and was interested in writing a wretching and difficult tale about the abuse of human life. Thanks all. I appreciate the comments and please comment down below if you have anything more; would be glad to hear. [[User:RelentlessRecusant|'RelentlessRecusant']] (Bureaucrat) (Talk) ( ) 06:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Stay High Don't let my comments about it's length discourage you. You have a great article and I would like to see many more of these. If a writer feels bad, he can't make storys very well. So stay on top! [[User:Meat and Taters|''Meat]] [[User talk:Meat and Taters|'' & Taters...]] 06:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Oh. Emm. Gee. Great article but how long do you spend writing stuff like this? FOTM 5ub7ank(7alk) 13:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Picture Heh, you used Nova's picture. [[User:Hyper Zergling|''From shadows, I come...]] OMG!!! Holy crap!!! This is without a doubt one of the best, if not THE best article I've read on HF yet! I'd just like to say it's an extremely creative and extensive article, and also freakin AWESOME!